I have asked around to a few people IRL about the Reagan thing. What's with this new talking point about Reagan in the debates? "The house that Reagan built" really sets off my bs alarm. I was a baby during the Reagan years, so I don't really know much about it. Looking back on it, all I really see is Iran Contra, war on drugs, and out of control spending. Besides just bad ideas, this seems be what Paul is opposed to. Seems to me to be more representative of the newer wing of Republicans. So my question (not intended to offend):
What does it mean when someone describes themselves as a Reagan Republican?
I don't really know what to think about this one (I'd be lying if I said I did). I can't readily assume it is sabotage. There is the update in the article which claims the UAE is relatively unaffected. However, the Iraq war is historical precedence for the currency policies of oil-exporting nations being related to major events.
But wouldn't encryption be an effective solution to that? Assuming someone does tap the lines, wouldn't the important stuff be unreadable?
Then what sense would it make to alert your enemy like this? Seems to me all liability and no benefits, that is if your only goal is surveillance. But of course, someone must be benefiting, as this can't be explained by coincidence.
Thank you, thank you for bringing up this point. If you "own" a line that runs on my land, yet I can't charge you rent, then that line is public. I don't see what people can't understand about this.
Although I'll probably be voting for Paul in my state's primary, I agree with you that he has a somewhat limited/naive view on companies which were handed private ownership of public goods on a silver platter.
Now, this hypothesis is bullshit of course. However, this ties in with a similar and much more severe problem coming up here in America. What problem you ask? The belief that anyone who's actually thinking logically must "have something wrong with them". This is not quite the same as the "terrorist" label. It's become more of a general social stigma in America. I'm not old enough to remember much into the cold war history, but from everything I've read, this problem has been getting worse for a while now.
But isn't it odd that the towers fell relatively symmetrically almost as if they were downed by preplaced explosives?
Ah, now there you go thinking again son.
Isn't it also odd that NORAD, which is there to coordinate ICBM defense, managed to miss (supposedly) 4 planes in one day?
Boy, I thought I told you to cut that out.
If you look at the 5 frames of video released from the Pentagon, doesn't the 'plane' appear to be moving a little too fast for a 757?
Son, what the sam hell's wrong with you? You hate America or something?
Isn't is highly unlikely, that debris fell from towers 1 and 2, ignited a fire inside building 7, and then the fire became distributed evenly within building 7, weakening the structure of the building evenly enough to cause it to collapse in a way that appeared exactly like a controlled demolition?
Boy, you're really starting to piss me off.
And just how did the two main towers manage to fall at nearly free fall speed without having explosives to move mass?
Boy, you can take that physics shit and cram it up your ass.
And shouldn't people in suicide missions actually die?
Goddammit boy, you know you can't trust them British media!
Look, I'm not hating on my country. Britain does the same thing (2005/07/07). And Germany did the same thing with the Reichstag. And I'm also not just focusing on 'terrorist' attacks. Depleted uranium shells anyone? Iraq trading oil for euros? Anyone?
But of course, I'm thinking. I'm thinking logically about evidence I've seen. What is that called again? Scientific... something or other. And that makes me UnAmerican.
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Steven Jones really is a terrorist.
Maybe someone can answer a question for me. I've looked at TFAs briefly, but from my reading the answer is no.
Q: Will this allow tables that can automagically:
Sort on a field (fields?)
Apply color groupings intelligently (rows/cols alternate colors)
Paginate records within a single <table> element (negating the need for reloading or AJAX)
I ask because I've had some amount of frustration with this in the past (and coincidentally in a current project), and it would be great to have an html table be a real first class table, rather than a dumb matrix of string data. Of course I realize my idea of a first class table isn't shared by everyone, but am I really the only one who would want some of these things?
Is the reason I don't see it here because it won't be done, or because it's supposed to be in another spec like the new xhtml or xforms (but I thought xforms is just input)?
On the bright side, I like the fact that the <input> tag gives you more choice of data types now. IMO, things such as this that move common functions into the standard to then be implemented once in the browser only are a Good Thing.
I never really understood this kind of thing, even paper-based discovery and document retention, and it's always sent my bullshit meter off the scale.
I used to work in a law firm, creating and maintaining a DB of old documents (pdf scans of old paper files). The whole goal was to be able to produce documents when asked by opponent's legal team and sanctioned by statute or by judge. So here I am sitting with a bunch of pdf files to potentially produce as evidence.
Now, they never asked me, and I never would have if they had, but it would have been trivial to alter the pdf files. Why? Well, because they're in our possession of course. Anyone with the sense god gave goats should be able to understand this. And I don't care if you're not technically inclined. An analog would be some company retaining paper documents. You don't even need computers, just whiteout and copy machine, and suddenly, John Smith never received that memo about new regulations.
If there's going to be a government mandate that documents are to be producible, then along with that mandate should come resources for public storage of those documents, which are in the public record (although not necessarily publicly viewable without a court order). AFAIK, this would be similar to marriage records, birth/death records, criminal records, inspection records, etc. If we don't want to waste the resources for that, then I guess it's not really that important is it? This way, we're not putting potential evidence in the hands of those who have the most incentive to alter that evidence.
IOW, this sort of policy is idiotic for the same reason that we don't each get to be the sole maintainer of our own criminal records.
The list of clips they used is here [PDF]. As said in the summary, they were all from movies.
What would be interesting to me is to have an experiment with real clips. If you know you're watching a movie with actors, you realize no one's really getting hurt.
I've seen some disturbing things on the net myself, and there's a big difference between hollywood violence and watching someone be shot in the head for real, or having their arm snapped in two.
And I'm sorry but mathematics is just the way in which meaning is expressed for machines. But not for humans. Not sure what you're saying here. If humans didn't think in math, we'd have no such thing as mathematics. That's why we use arabic numerals instead of roman numerals or a tally system. If a financial sheet has nothing but tally marks, it's incomprehensible. But if you see $123, you instantly know 1x100 + 2x10 + 3x1 (subconsciously, but you know it).
I have not read that book, but I would argue that a big reason computer science is stunted is this absurd relation to mathematics. You need better-than-average communication skills if you're ever going to work on a team -- at least to comment your code. You need philosophy -- yes, philosophy! -- at least as much as you need math, and a decent logic class would be even more useful. And you need research skills a bit beyond justfuckinggoogleit.com, if you're going to RTFM -- considering you may have to go looking for a manual, or even the right software to begin with. Not sure, but it sounds like you're talking more about software engineering there, which is not really comp sci (which has been said at length here already).
As far as the article, the guy doesn't distinguish enough between comp sci/soft eng, and doesn't really define what he means by math. Is he talking about just basic algebra, or about maths that are very relevant to comp sci (combinatorics, graph theory, mod algebra, etc)? Lame article.
ok, I know this a day late, but for all the stragglers like me.....
this is just my opinion, no legal basis whatsoever:
The question: did the NCAA have standing to eject the blogger from the game? I think this hinges on one simple fact. Does the NCAA own the grounds the game was held on, or are they representing the entity which does own it? If either of those conditions are met, it would seem to me that the NCAA can kick out whoever they want.
However, it appears that the University of Louisville is a public school. This, to me at least, means that the only grounds for ejecting someone from the stadium would be some sort of disorderly conduct, and the ejecting would need to be done by law officers or stadium security. So even if NCAA handles security, which I frankly don't know, if the blogger wasn't being disorderly, there's no standing for kicking him out.
Analogy time, what's a sport slashdotters can relate to? Ultimate. So you start a local ultimate frisbee league, and you meet at the local public park. For the sake of argument, let's imagine it gets as popular as baseball, and people start showing up to watch. You, being the entrepeneur that you are, decide to sell some concessions. Now, again for reasons that violate every natural law of coolness, the sport gets really popular, and you decide to up your game and start recording and streaming it online, making money from ads. So you're making money, having fun, so far, so good. That is until some other competing entrepenuers show up with handycams.
So two questions: can you kick them out of the public park, and can you claim copyright over the game itself and exercise your copyright priveleges accordingly?
On both counts, I would say no. Wrt the first, they have as much right to be there as anyone, and that should only be taken away if they truly are, by reasonable standards of a law officer (yeah, i know), disorderly and/or a danger others in some way. Otherwise, you can't touch'em. Anything less is an afront to personal freedom. Wrt the second, hell no you can't copyright the game. Why? Because, history, recordings of facts, hell reality itself IS NOT up for grabs as intellectual property (or at least it shouldn't be).
Now, if you can make a stalking case (thinking paparrazi here) that may be a little different (IANAL). However, it would seem to me that you can only claim stalking/paparrazi if you make a sensible effort to communicate you don't want to be filmed, want to be left alone, and show that the alleged stalking is specifically aimed at an individual, not at an event, or just a place in general. In other words, walking around the city with your handycam is ok, as long as you're not following someone in particular without their consent. But if that person(s) are occupying a city square holding a rally, well then they're fair game.
But of course, you can see where I'm going with this. All of these other variables that might possibly give you (or the NCAA) standing to remove someone just aren't there. You have no standing to do that.
Now, if we change the analogy so that you're playing ultimate in your back yard, charing admission, streaming online with ads, well then that's your private property, you can do what you bloody well want, within confines of the law. But the park is public. Don't like it? Well then use another venue.
I haven't posted to/. in a while, but in reading thru these threads, it just seemed like noone was concerned with the fact that this was a public place (AFAICT), and even beyond that, that noone has ownership over the content of a sports game. Well, at least they shouldn't in a rational society. Like I said, I mostly read, don't post often, but these I felt were two really important points that were being missed, and I just couldn't let it go.
After all Noah didn't carry two beagles, two German Shepherds, etc onto the ark, he carried two canines onto the ark and all the different breeds have evolved from those two canines by bringing out different traits via breeding (go forth and multiply as it is called in Genesis).
Huh?? I can't tell if you're serious there, but God I hope not. If I remember Sunday school correctly, by counting the generations between Noah and Jesus, Noah would be ca 4000BC, correct? All those different species in so many places on Earth in ~6000 years? That's it, I need new goggles.
IF you're going to design a high-tech landmine, for heavens sakes, design in a renewable sunset clause so that if the landmine doesn't hear from you in 30 days it disables itself. If you need to reenable it, fine, but disabled should be the default.
Wait, what? Not that I'm for landmines, but wouldn't those be pointless? As soon as the enemy reverse engineers them, the minefields become non-obstacles.
Isn't that also essentially the problem with friend/foe ID? Could be hard to do, and maybe not even worth it, but all it would take is one successful capture to reverse engineer the thing. As long as the key is stored in the mine itself, wouldn't it be discoverable to whoever could salvage one without it going off?
You could put 2 keys on each one: 1st key is sent out to human, is transformed through an algorithm only your soldiers possess, and upon return, should match the 2nd key. Of course, there would be failure rate, and of course the transform devices could be captured as well.
Alright so besides the point that call monitoring is unconstitutional,
I think so too. However, the Supreme Court has said there is no expectation of privacy on call records. So conversations may be protected by the 4th, but numbers dialed and length of time are not according to SC. As much as I hate his policies, this is the argument Atty. General Gonzales uses when defending the call record monitoring. See
US v. Miller
Does anyone know if this decision is still in effect, or if it has been overturned? Btw, careful when googling, there are at least 2 US v. Miller's, the one from 1939 is a 2nd amendment case.
some twit in, say, Madrid, decides to blow up his apartment rather than be caught... and one of the scraps of paper left over includes a phone number assigned to disposable phone bought near the Mexico border... well, there's a certain amount of urgency in having a quick way to at least see if there's a red-hot pattern of calls swirling around the related numbers.
Ok, I'll bite. Then immediately call the telco and get just the pertinent records. Correct me if wrong, but they can currently do this without a warrant for up to 72 hours yes? This could take, what, an hour at most? (Seriously, I'm asking. Anyone experienced with this care to comment?)
about how the FBI (on Bush's watch! that lazy bastard!) didn't see an attack, an arms shipment, etc., coming... just like on 9/11! Because the phone records are going to be there.
Sigh..... Bin Laden determined to attack in United States. We already had the intelligence remember? Before the Patriot Act. See also Larry Silverstein, who was possibly tipped off to the attacks.
I understand the opposing viewpoint, really. Even if you don't think privacy invasions are illegal/immoral, ask yourself this: Gathering all this data introduces a lot of meaningless noise into the intelligence data (99.99% data has nothing to do with terrorism). So the storing, indexing, and sifting through all this data is at best a waste of money, at worst a waste of security resources that could be better spent elsewhere, correct? In response to your point, yes pattern detection is great tool. It will only work, however, when it isn't tainted by noise data and is focused on real threats.
We need more solid, focused human intelligence. Not meaningless noise data that can only slow down our intelligence process. I'm all for the full communications tapping of (suspected) terrorists. But collecting even simple records of this many phone calls just introduces useless data that is a burden on intelligence gatherers. The NSA isn't stupid, they know this. So the question is: why do they want it so damn bad?
I said this yesterday on/., and I'll say it again: write your congressmen and women.
So let's hope that this is just another Linconesque suspension of habius corpus, and that these wrongs will eventually be righted.
Let's do more than hope.
Tonite I'll be writing a letter to my congress(wo)men and I will bring it to work tomorrow. I live in a very republican area, so I don't think it will go over very well.
Everyone, talk to the people you work with, write and call your reps and senators.
People need to know about this. They need to know about the government collusion to, at the very least, do nothing to prevent to Sept 11 attacks, and to hide the information about the subsequent investigations.
Get involved, dammit!
Slashdot Mirror
disclaimer: voting for Paul
Could you give me your 2c on something?
I have asked around to a few people IRL about the Reagan thing. What's with this new talking point about Reagan in the debates? "The house that Reagan built" really sets off my bs alarm. I was a baby during the Reagan years, so I don't really know much about it. Looking back on it, all I really see is Iran Contra, war on drugs, and out of control spending. Besides just bad ideas, this seems be what Paul is opposed to. Seems to me to be more representative of the newer wing of Republicans. So my question (not intended to offend):
What does it mean when someone describes themselves as a Reagan Republican?
http://news.google.com/news?oe=utf-8&um=1&tab=wn&hl=en&q=UAE+dollar&btnG=Search+News
I don't really know what to think about this one (I'd be lying if I said I did). I can't readily assume it is sabotage. There is the update in the article which claims the UAE is relatively unaffected. However, the Iraq war is historical precedence for the currency policies of oil-exporting nations being related to major events.
For those who care to look: Iraq, euros
But wouldn't encryption be an effective solution to that? Assuming someone does tap the lines, wouldn't the important stuff be unreadable?
Then what sense would it make to alert your enemy like this? Seems to me all liability and no benefits, that is if your only goal is surveillance. But of course, someone must be benefiting, as this can't be explained by coincidence.
Thank you, thank you for bringing up this point. If you "own" a line that runs on my land, yet I can't charge you rent, then that line is public. I don't see what people can't understand about this.
Although I'll probably be voting for Paul in my state's primary, I agree with you that he has a somewhat limited/naive view on companies which were handed private ownership of public goods on a silver platter.
Here are google maps for Alexandria, Dubai, and Musqat. Dubai and Musqat are across the Persian Gulf from Iran.
Wikipedia shows that similar outages occurred in 2005 and 2006 in Pakistan and Southeast Asia.
Now, this hypothesis is bullshit of course. However, this ties in with a similar and much more severe problem coming up here in America. What problem you ask? The belief that anyone who's actually thinking logically must "have something wrong with them". This is not quite the same as the "terrorist" label. It's become more of a general social stigma in America. I'm not old enough to remember much into the cold war history, but from everything I've read, this problem has been getting worse for a while now.
But isn't it odd that the towers fell relatively symmetrically almost as if they were downed by preplaced explosives?
Ah, now there you go thinking again son.
Isn't it also odd that NORAD, which is there to coordinate ICBM defense, managed to miss (supposedly) 4 planes in one day?
Boy, I thought I told you to cut that out.
If you look at the 5 frames of video released from the Pentagon, doesn't the 'plane' appear to be moving a little too fast for a 757?
Son, what the sam hell's wrong with you? You hate America or something?
Isn't is highly unlikely, that debris fell from towers 1 and 2, ignited a fire inside building 7, and then the fire became distributed evenly within building 7, weakening the structure of the building evenly enough to cause it to collapse in a way that appeared exactly like a controlled demolition?
Boy, you're really starting to piss me off.
And just how did the two main towers manage to fall at nearly free fall speed without having explosives to move mass?
Boy, you can take that physics shit and cram it up your ass.
And shouldn't people in suicide missions actually die?
Goddammit boy, you know you can't trust them British media!
Look, I'm not hating on my country. Britain does the same thing (2005/07/07). And Germany did the same thing with the Reichstag. And I'm also not just focusing on 'terrorist' attacks. Depleted uranium shells anyone? Iraq trading oil for euros? Anyone?
But of course, I'm thinking. I'm thinking logically about evidence I've seen. What is that called again? Scientific ... something or other. And that makes me UnAmerican.
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Steven Jones really is a terrorist.
Maybe someone can answer a question for me. I've looked at TFAs briefly, but from my reading the answer is no.
Q: Will this allow tables that can automagically:
I ask because I've had some amount of frustration with this in the past (and coincidentally in a current project), and it would be great to have an html table be a real first class table, rather than a dumb matrix of string data. Of course I realize my idea of a first class table isn't shared by everyone, but am I really the only one who would want some of these things?
Is the reason I don't see it here because it won't be done, or because it's supposed to be in another spec like the new xhtml or xforms (but I thought xforms is just input)?
On the bright side, I like the fact that the <input> tag gives you more choice of data types now. IMO, things such as this that move common functions into the standard to then be implemented once in the browser only are a Good Thing.
In other news...
While googling found some other good ones.
I never really understood this kind of thing, even paper-based discovery and document retention, and it's always sent my bullshit meter off the scale.
I used to work in a law firm, creating and maintaining a DB of old documents (pdf scans of old paper files). The whole goal was to be able to produce documents when asked by opponent's legal team and sanctioned by statute or by judge. So here I am sitting with a bunch of pdf files to potentially produce as evidence.
Now, they never asked me, and I never would have if they had, but it would have been trivial to alter the pdf files. Why? Well, because they're in our possession of course. Anyone with the sense god gave goats should be able to understand this. And I don't care if you're not technically inclined. An analog would be some company retaining paper documents. You don't even need computers, just whiteout and copy machine, and suddenly, John Smith never received that memo about new regulations.
If there's going to be a government mandate that documents are to be producible, then along with that mandate should come resources for public storage of those documents, which are in the public record (although not necessarily publicly viewable without a court order). AFAIK, this would be similar to marriage records, birth/death records, criminal records, inspection records, etc. If we don't want to waste the resources for that, then I guess it's not really that important is it? This way, we're not putting potential evidence in the hands of those who have the most incentive to alter that evidence.
IOW, this sort of policy is idiotic for the same reason that we don't each get to be the sole maintainer of our own criminal records.
The list of clips they used is here [PDF]. As said in the summary, they were all from movies.
What would be interesting to me is to have an experiment with real clips. If you know you're watching a movie with actors, you realize no one's really getting hurt.
I've seen some disturbing things on the net myself, and there's a big difference between hollywood violence and watching someone be shot in the head for real, or having their arm snapped in two.
As far as the article, the guy doesn't distinguish enough between comp sci/soft eng, and doesn't really define what he means by math. Is he talking about just basic algebra, or about maths that are very relevant to comp sci (combinatorics, graph theory, mod algebra, etc)? Lame article.
ok, I know this a day late, but for all the stragglers like me..... this is just my opinion, no legal basis whatsoever:
The question: did the NCAA have standing to eject the blogger from the game? I think this hinges on one simple fact. Does the NCAA own the grounds the game was held on, or are they representing the entity which does own it? If either of those conditions are met, it would seem to me that the NCAA can kick out whoever they want.
However, it appears that the University of Louisville is a public school. This, to me at least, means that the only grounds for ejecting someone from the stadium would be some sort of disorderly conduct, and the ejecting would need to be done by law officers or stadium security. So even if NCAA handles security, which I frankly don't know, if the blogger wasn't being disorderly, there's no standing for kicking him out.
Analogy time, what's a sport slashdotters can relate to? Ultimate. So you start a local ultimate frisbee league, and you meet at the local public park. For the sake of argument, let's imagine it gets as popular as baseball, and people start showing up to watch. You, being the entrepeneur that you are, decide to sell some concessions. Now, again for reasons that violate every natural law of coolness, the sport gets really popular, and you decide to up your game and start recording and streaming it online, making money from ads. So you're making money, having fun, so far, so good. That is until some other competing entrepenuers show up with handycams.
So two questions: can you kick them out of the public park, and can you claim copyright over the game itself and exercise your copyright priveleges accordingly?
On both counts, I would say no. Wrt the first, they have as much right to be there as anyone, and that should only be taken away if they truly are, by reasonable standards of a law officer (yeah, i know), disorderly and/or a danger others in some way. Otherwise, you can't touch'em. Anything less is an afront to personal freedom. Wrt the second, hell no you can't copyright the game. Why? Because, history, recordings of facts, hell reality itself IS NOT up for grabs as intellectual property (or at least it shouldn't be).
Now, if you can make a stalking case (thinking paparrazi here) that may be a little different (IANAL). However, it would seem to me that you can only claim stalking/paparrazi if you make a sensible effort to communicate you don't want to be filmed, want to be left alone, and show that the alleged stalking is specifically aimed at an individual, not at an event, or just a place in general. In other words, walking around the city with your handycam is ok, as long as you're not following someone in particular without their consent. But if that person(s) are occupying a city square holding a rally, well then they're fair game.
But of course, you can see where I'm going with this. All of these other variables that might possibly give you (or the NCAA) standing to remove someone just aren't there. You have no standing to do that.
Now, if we change the analogy so that you're playing ultimate in your back yard, charing admission, streaming online with ads, well then that's your private property, you can do what you bloody well want, within confines of the law. But the park is public. Don't like it? Well then use another venue.
I haven't posted to /. in a while, but in reading thru these threads, it just seemed like noone was concerned with the fact that this was a public place (AFAICT), and even beyond that, that noone has ownership over the content of a sports game. Well, at least they shouldn't in a rational society. Like I said, I mostly read, don't post often, but these I felt were two really important points that were being missed, and I just couldn't let it go.
Well, we'll just have to see what the voting machine thinks about that, now won't we?
Free, non-propriety standards compliance.
.....
Free, non-propriety standards compliance.
Free, non-propriety standards compliance.
<catches breath>
Free, non-propriety standards compliance.
Huh?? I can't tell if you're serious there, but God I hope not. If I remember Sunday school correctly, by counting the generations between Noah and Jesus, Noah would be ca 4000BC, correct? All those different species in so many places on Earth in ~6000 years? That's it, I need new goggles.
Wait, what? Not that I'm for landmines, but wouldn't those be pointless? As soon as the enemy reverse engineers them, the minefields become non-obstacles.
Isn't that also essentially the problem with friend/foe ID? Could be hard to do, and maybe not even worth it, but all it would take is one successful capture to reverse engineer the thing. As long as the key is stored in the mine itself, wouldn't it be discoverable to whoever could salvage one without it going off?
You could put 2 keys on each one: 1st key is sent out to human, is transformed through an algorithm only your soldiers possess, and upon return, should match the 2nd key. Of course, there would be failure rate, and of course the transform devices could be captured as well.
Seems like a loosing battle to me.
I think so too. However, the Supreme Court has said there is no expectation of privacy on call records. So conversations may be protected by the 4th, but numbers dialed and length of time are not according to SC. As much as I hate his policies, this is the argument Atty. General Gonzales uses when defending the call record monitoring. See US v. Miller
Does anyone know if this decision is still in effect, or if it has been overturned? Btw, careful when googling, there are at least 2 US v. Miller's, the one from 1939 is a 2nd amendment case.
O'Connor actually gave a strong dissent in Kelo.
Read the opinion here (pdf)
The record of concurring and dissenting can be found here
And yes, the case was a big dissappointment
The point being, I don't trust that he has a desire to act speedily on behalf of the public.
Ok, I'll bite. Then immediately call the telco and get just the pertinent records. Correct me if wrong, but they can currently do this without a warrant for up to 72 hours yes? This could take, what, an hour at most? (Seriously, I'm asking. Anyone experienced with this care to comment?)
SighI understand the opposing viewpoint, really. Even if you don't think privacy invasions are illegal/immoral, ask yourself this: Gathering all this data introduces a lot of meaningless noise into the intelligence data (99.99% data has nothing to do with terrorism). So the storing, indexing, and sifting through all this data is at best a waste of money, at worst a waste of security resources that could be better spent elsewhere, correct? In response to your point, yes pattern detection is great tool. It will only work, however, when it isn't tainted by noise data and is focused on real threats.
We need more solid, focused human intelligence. Not meaningless noise data that can only slow down our intelligence process. I'm all for the full communications tapping of (suspected) terrorists. But collecting even simple records of this many phone calls just introduces useless data that is a burden on intelligence gatherers. The NSA isn't stupid, they know this. So the question is: why do they want it so damn bad?
I said this yesterday on /., and I'll say it again: write your congressmen and women.